Why is "poldering" seemingly such an alien idea in the US (and other countries)?

Question

Well it's an age old proverb that to govern is to make sacrifices.

Everyone knows that with more than a trivial amount of people not everyone thinks the same as you. So one has to come up with a solution, either ignoring the people who think differently or meeting somewhere in the middle.

It seems to me that the US (and most newer democracies) have a real tendency to just listen to their own voters, and fully ignoring the rest. This creates a polarized society, leading to a lot of stress between different groups. (In case of say Iraq one could see even the rise of IS as an effect of this polarizing - where a group feels they are marginalized by a larger group).

The other option is to what we call here "poldering", where each group makes his stance during election. However after that the groups start to look for common grounds. Each giving in to some requirements of the other group to make sure they consolidate what they think is more important. Leaving many groups with what they feel is good, on topics they feel are important.

As a direct example I take the US government as it is right now: why do the democrats not go to the president with the idea: "hey let's talk about immigration, we would support you if you would support our idea for healthcare". Or the president going to the other parties with "hey I need this wall funded, how about we increase taxes to the top echelon of the population then we can both fund the wall and xyz you have always loved to get". Instead we see two people solidifying in their own "correctness" blaming the other from not doing exactly what they like, and in the end no one gets what they want?

Why is this act of "poldering" so alien?

Answer 1

This Happens All the Time

I worked as legislative staff for several years in my state's legislature. The behavior you are talking about happens all the time. It happens on trivial issues ("if you'll agree to restaurant X catering the committee meeting tomorrow, we'll let you have the conference room with the nice chairs on Friday") all the way up to serious policy issues like you describe.

On relatively small or medium sized issues this can happen quickly. One committee I helped staff would have 15 minute breaks in meetings. Ostensibly this was for legislators to grab drinks, go to the bathroom, etc. In practice there were typically meetings "at the rail" (they would go to a balcony railing nearby) and trade favors and iron out committee business. In some cases there could be 20-30 minutes of heated debate before a break, but afterwards a motion would pass unanimously.

On larger issues this takes much more time, but still happens. Legislators meet with each other in private, as well as members of the executive branch, to swap favors. This also happens within parties. One of the key events for this kind of thing is a caucus (where applicable).

This behavior is also called log-rolling.

Why don't I see this happening more often?

Largely it's because it tends to be difficult to observe. It's hard to see the backroom deals and personal conversations that make up log-rolling.

But there are real reasons it doesn't happen more often. For one thing, the United States has a weak party system. Parties can't exercise strong discipline over their members. This means that the negotiations usually don't happen as exchanges between parties, but as exchanges between individuals. This makes the job far more difficult and time consuming. Nonetheless, both party leaders and individual legislators are capable of reaching these deals regularly.

A Theoretical Answer

Richard Fenno's Homestyle describes a theory of legislator behavior that may be interesting to you. He conducted extensive fieldwork which included traveling with legislators and observing them as they worked in their own districts. His book is both very good and very accessible to non-academics. I would recommend it for anyone interested in legislative politics.

At its heart, Fenno's said that legislators work hard to build a relationship with their constituency. They know that eventually they will have to explain their votes to the public. Voting for bills which their voters don't support will weaken or harm their relationship, limiting re-election chances.

Wikisum has a summary of the book. It's inexpensive on Amazon if you are interested.

Answer 2

You seldom hear much about the many issues on which compromises are made. They're the proverbial dog that does nothing in the nighttime. The problem is that on some issues you have at least one side (often more) that absolutely rejects compromise.

To take your current example, I expect the Democrats would be willing to discuss reasonable measures on immigration, but Trump insists on an ineffective, unpopular, but symbolic Wall. Indeed, he's already rejected most reasonable anti-illegal immigration measured, like NAFTA. (After all, if people could find decent jobs in their home countries, fewer would want to leave.) And of course the Democrats wouldn't want that Wall even if Mexico was paying. So as long as it remains a question of Wall or no Wall, instead of how to effectively deal with immigration, no compromise is possible.

Answer 3

The US is a country that effectively has a two party system (minor party candidates are rarely elected). These two parties require require votes from around 51% of the electorate in their district to get majorities in various houses. This would seem to suggest a large degree of internal 'Poldaring' within these parties to reach shared positions on which they can run a campaign. Note that to attract further votes the party may do additional 'poldaring' to try and align themselves better with public. All this is done before coming into power.

So now you seem to be asking these parties which have gone to some length to settle their internal differences, to then reach out across the divide and make further compromises that may be counter to their values, and lose them votes from their core supports later down the line; this is a lot to ask.

Parties in opposition often gain political capital by opposing the government, even at times when this may not be constructive, making their votes harder to win. A party is made of many individuals, and by placating the opposition, there is a risk of alienating those within the party and losing key votes. This leads to the position that there is no benefit in compromising with the opposition for the majority party.

Your example about Donald Trump's wall is particularly interesting. Trump promised a border wall specifically, and has (or so it would seem) decided that he must therefore deliver this. As you can see, this is not necessarily something that can be compromised on - there is either a border wall or not. This is an excellent example of when opposite positions are held that simply can not be reconciled.